« Private Fire Prevention | Main | Pay what you want for the new Radiohead album »
Why aren't there more dating coaches?
Once a week, I go to some guy's house and pay him a fairly significant sum of money so he can tell me in which order I should pluck strings on my guitar. I would like to learn to play guitar well. But it's nowhere near as central to my happiness as my lovelife. Yet I'm allowed -- even praised -- for seeking expert guidance there, but would be roundly shamed if I sought a dating coach.
That's Ezra (and here), with nary a mention of the single payer. I'm all for the idea, but I see at least two reasons why the concept does not thrive.
First, many of the people with dating problems are their own worst enemies. Paying for advice won't much help because self-sabotage is the goal and the advice-giver can't disassemble the relevant weirdnesses. And many people would hire the coach as a substitute for actually making themselves emotionally available.
Second, I do not believe it much benefits "losers" to learn additional slickness. The more likely result is that the coach tells the loser about seven of his mistakes, thereby discouraging him altogether.
Whereas when the guitar teacher screams "Ezra, that ain't no G7!", I suspect Ezra still goes home feeling pretty good about himself, as indeed he should. But even guitar teachers (and I have had several) rely on lessons for income and they aren't so inclined to give honest feedback. They fear making their students feel bad and thus losing them. After all most guitar students are terrible (except for me all my teachers told me I was pretty good.)
The bottom line: It is much easier to sell aspirational goods than honesty.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 2, 2007 at 07:30 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
I completely disagree. Some people are really bad at understanding how their behavior is perceived by other people. Psychologists have shown that people tend to overestimated how much people notice a faux pas. A person can have particular difficulty if he or she can not make subtle, but important distinctions, between social missteps. For example, a guy might be completely mortified that he accidentally put on one blue and one black sock and think, incorrectly, that people are noticing and criticising him for it (in reality I doubt that anyone would notice). The problem is that exhausted from all that mortification the same guy might pick his nose in a crowd (that faux pas people are going to notice). If you can't tell the difference between social reaction to each faux pas then life is both difficult (one is constantly berating oneself) and ostracizing (others don't want to be around you because of the extreme missteps). A coach could help people distinguish between the two and thus have both greater peace and a better social life.
Posted by: Anonymous at Oct 2, 2007 8:28:41 AM
Among the package of services a good psychologist is selling is, implicitly, that of "dating coach".
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Oct 2, 2007 8:55:26 AM
Bill,
Same goes for bad psychologists. But yes, you and Anonymous have it right. Our host's notions about how and why poor daters date poorly seems largely an unfounded personal view.
Posted by: kharris at Oct 2, 2007 8:59:26 AM
About the only reality show I would ever recommend is "Confessions of a Match Maker" on one of the cable channels. The lady in the title dispenses some tough love with her clients to help improve their desirability in the dating marketplace. Their dating lives subsequently improve, usually to the extent that the clients buy in to her advice.
Posted by: mhowell at Oct 2, 2007 9:02:08 AM
This sounds reasonable at first blush. But then, how to explain the ridiculous proliferation of makeover shows over the last few years? Apparently you can get people not only to be criticized, but to do it on national TV, if they get a snazzy new wardrobe out of it. And I do think the makeover pros and the hypothetical dating coach have substantially overlapping jobs; how many people's dating problems could be ameliorated with a better wardrobe, a nice haircut, and attention to hygiene? And how many makeover shows have gone well beyond that to incorporate life-coach sorts of stuff, dancing lessons, etc.?
OK, I have just admitted to the entire world my secret, mortifying weakness for makeover shows. Shoot me now. But I do think there would be a market for dating coaches -- not for the worst cases (I've never seen a makeover show that tells someone, "well, your problem is you're a creepy narcissistic ass"), but for the borderline folks who want to make a change and are mystified at what they're missing. And that would be a worthwhile marginal revolution, indeed.
Posted by: Andromeda at Oct 2, 2007 9:07:20 AM
I was a pitiful dater in my late teens/early 20s and a highly competent dater in my late 30s/early 40s. There were many differences in terms of maturity, etc., of course, but I will testify that a significant amount of the change was just basic information that I didn't know before that I learned later. In fact, the earlier lack of information about how to deal with the opposite sex probably contributed, at least somewhat, to the failed marriage between rounds of dating, while the additional information I obtained later, I believe, is contributing to a much more successful marriage this time around.
Moral: a good theory helps. It's just information, and it only helps at the margins, but that can sometimes make a huge difference.
Posted by: M. Hodak at Oct 2, 2007 9:13:12 AM
There is the "seduction community," of "The Game" and "Mystery Method" fame. http://www.fastseduction.com/
Posted by: Noter at Oct 2, 2007 9:14:16 AM
They do have dating coaches. They're called matchmakers, and they're successful and popular in many countries.
The question is, why is it negative to have a matchmaker set you up with several members of the opposite sex that you will likely be compatible with, versus yourself going on many dates with people completely incompatible with you? People are judging the process, not the results.
Posted by: 8 at Oct 2, 2007 9:29:46 AM
I (partially) disagree with Tyler on this one. The two reasons he gives would make a dating coach ineffective, rather than a hard-sell. I think dating advice (and advice about behavior in social interactions) can be very effective, but hard to sell.
It is true that it is much easier to sell aspirational goods than honesty, but that begs the question, why can't dating services be sold as an aspirational good?
I think this is because it goes against a self-deceived image of being high-status individuals. By signing up for a dating coach, I am not only accepting as true the social perception of my low status, but I am also signaling it openly.
On the effectiveness of a dating coach, I highly recommend the (somewhat cheesy) reality show by VH1 called "The Pick-Up Artist". Where an expert not only gives advice but coaches participants through (and puts participants to compete against each other) at picking-up women, until one of them is crowned the pick-up artist. (Sure, the guys there are not "dating" women, but the advice they receive on short occasional social interactions with women follows many principles from evolutionary psychology).
Posted by: economister at Oct 2, 2007 10:10:14 AM
See, I think Ezra has this completely wrong. It's clear that there is a substantial population of people who are unfairly deprived of dating opportunities (and the consequent sexual and personal fulfillment) merely because they were either born unattractive or were unlucky enough to grow up in environments that left them saddled with personality quirks. The obvious remedy is one of these two eminently equitable and fair alternatives:
(1) to compel the good-looking and clever people, who had these advantages from birth, to either mangle their appearances or start acting dorky, in order to give the attractiveness-deprived a fair chance, or
(2) prohibit the attractive people from having more than their fair share of dates and social opportunities. Alternatively, we could impose a date tax to discourage the advantaged from taking for themselves all the opportunities. The proceeds of the tax could be used to fund a charm school.
Posted by: boldface at Oct 2, 2007 10:12:55 AM
I think a single man taking guitar lessons (or a cooking class, or an art class, etc.) is almost surely using it as a sort of "dating coach" anyway. "I want to learn to play guitar" and "I want to know how to cook Thai food" are just other ways of grooming yourself to be more attractive to potential mates.
Posted by: Mike at Oct 2, 2007 10:16:48 AM
It's clear that there is a substantial population of people who are unfairly deprived of dating opportunities ... [one solution] ...
prohibit the attractive people from having more than their fair share of dates and social opportunities.
You touch on the concept of de facto polygamy. I have explained this concept at some length.
For a more terse explanation, however, I defer to Roissy, an expert in the aforementioned seduction community:
the distribution of men by their attractiveness to women follows an uneven continuum where at the extremes a small percentage of alphas monopolize an immense number of quality women and a much larger blob of omegas struggle to rut with warpigs
Posted by: Peter at Oct 2, 2007 10:55:39 AM
I think the point on the method of compensation is important. My mother used to pay my violin teacher, a family friend, a big gift roughly every half a year. Even though my teacher had never said anything good about my playing, she was markedly harsher on me weeks after receiving a gift. I got used to be called a hopeless.
My boyfriend has three guitars, and is planning to get another one. In spite of all his many virtues and talents, he is no great music genius. But I can always count on him telling me to f-off when I tell him the truth about what I think of his guitar playing.
Posted by: Yan Li at Oct 2, 2007 11:31:21 AM
We look down upon dating coaches for the same reason that we look down upon cosmetic surgery or other artificial methods of beautification (e.g., lifts for men, hair extensions for women). Dating is a game of signals. In counterfeiting the signals, you are cheating.
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Oct 2, 2007 12:02:19 PM
I think that some of the more successful "dating coaches" both highlight the inadequacies of the student AND present the student's new knowledge in an inspirational manner. There's no reason for a dichotomy.
"the distribution of men by their attractiveness to women follows an uneven continuum where at the extremes a small percentage of alphas monopolize an immense number of quality women and a much larger blob of omegas struggle to rut with warpigs"
I'm not really sure what the author is trying to say here. By attractiveness does he mean physical attractiveness? If so, I can safely shoot that down, every woman that I've ever gone out with has been markedly better looking than myself. On the other hand, if by "attractiveness" the author means the entire package, then i agree, but how and why should it be any different?
Isaac Crawford
Blogging in Yemen
www.isaharr.com
Posted by: Isaac Crawford at Oct 2, 2007 12:11:28 PM
I believe date coaching isn't popular because it's awkward, unpleasant, and undesirable work for the coaches. Not because there isn't demand or true value in such services.
Posted by: giovanni at Oct 2, 2007 12:24:11 PM
I have Asperger's and could really have used a dating coach n college, but I'd hate to be the coach who had me as a client. I don't notice posture and voice signals that are, apparently, obvious to most people; in a noisy or crowded environment I clam up, and get a headache after about ninety minutes; I'm not interested in alcohol, sports, or other typical conversation-starters. A coach who advised me to "just be yourself--act natural" would find me in the library's astronomy or medieval history aisles.
In contrast, playing guitar (or in my case, piano and saxophone) is rule-based--"see this notation, make that motion with your hands"--so it's easy to learn. Takes practice, but at least I can see the signals.
Posted by: cdeboe at Oct 2, 2007 12:24:11 PM
Dr. Phil has written a book, and hosted several shows on the topic of "loving smart," or in other words, being a good date and potential mate to someone. Now he even has a deal with Match.com. So obviously there is a market for advice in the area of love and relationships.
But here's the thing, why are people going to hire a relationship coach when they can get valuable (free) advice from their friends? The variable is really, will they listen to that advice? The experience I've had with my friends suggest that people only take advice that confirms their existing biases and behavior and disregard everything else. Then they moan and groan about their relationship woes, you reiterate your advice, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: Christina at Oct 2, 2007 12:25:22 PM
because most people dont want to be certified as a loser.
Posted by: jean at Oct 2, 2007 12:26:35 PM
and for sure they wont admit it to another man. A psychiatrist, a woman ,tell me that impotent men were comfortable talking about that with her.They would never talk about that to a man
Posted by: jean at Oct 2, 2007 12:31:07 PM
The reason there are not more dating coaches, is that dating is an extremely inefficient way of relating to the opposite sex. Believe it or not, people who care about fixing their lovelife don't "date": they join the seduction community and get good results at little to no cost (the basic information is freely available, but there's a thriving "paid support" ecosystem). A "dating coach" is just hard to take seriously.
Posted by: xxx at Oct 2, 2007 12:36:43 PM
So what you are really looking for in a dating coach is someone who previously was a Vaganova Ballet instructor, Russian piano teacher or wrestling coach.
Posted by: jcote at Oct 2, 2007 1:10:39 PM
It seems like the market has found a way to work around the stigma of hiring a dating coach. Its called ONLINE DATING. Of course it mainly helps singles who find it hard to get a first date rather than those who have serious social issues.
And the popularity of online dating supports my hypothesis that a "successful" lovelife is really mostly about the luck of the draw. Online dating facilitates the matching process. I'm single and therefore biased, but I don't believe that everyone who might want a dating coach or some close substitute is a "loser" or "his own worst enemy" as Tyler asserts. Many of us are just not lucky or smart enough to get the right match!
Posted by: Cparibus at Oct 2, 2007 1:16:50 PM
It seems like the market has found a way to work around the stigma of hiring a dating coach. Its called ONLINE DATING. Of course it mainly helps singles who find it hard to get a first date rather than those who have serious social issues.
And the popularity of online dating supports my hypothesis that a "successful" lovelife is really mostly about the luck of the draw. Online dating facilitates the matching process. I'm single and therefore biased, but I don't believe that everyone who might want a dating coach or some close substitute is a "loser" or "his own worst enemy" as Tyler asserts. Many of us are just not lucky or smart enough to get the right match!
Posted by: Cparibus at Oct 2, 2007 1:17:05 PM
Its called ONLINE DATING.
You misspelled "spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, spam and spam festival". Ever tried signing up as a woman to ANY online dating service? It's a waste of time.
Posted by: xxx at Oct 2, 2007 1:22:06 PM
